Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Don't think they're gunports- there are too many. French naval history site gives armament for this cruiser as

two 305 (mm?) in two single turrets, forward and aft

two 274(mm?) in two side turrets

eight 138.6 (mm?) in four double turrets

four 65(mm?)

fourteen 47 (mm?)

four air-TLT's (?) 450mm (removed in 1906) (these sound like mortars)

This ship was built essentially as an experimental vessel, giving the designer requirements for displacement and armament and letting him go. Armour-plating was in nickel-steel, up to 400 mm thick in a band around the waterline. The Carnot joined the French Navy in 1896

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Don't think they're gunports- there are too many. French naval history site gives armament for this cruiser as

two 305 (mm?) in two single turrets, forward and aft

two 274(mm?) in two side turrets

eight 138.6 (mm?) in four double turrets

four 65(mm?)

fourteen 47 (mm?)

four air-TLT's (?) 450mm (removed in 1906) (these sound like mortars)

This ship was built essentially as an experimental vessel, giving the designer requirements for displacement and armament and letting him go. Armour-plating was in nickel-steel, up to 400 mm thick in a band around the waterline. The Carnot joined the French Navy in 1896

Ventilation in those pre-dreadnought ships was horrible. It was almost like they didn't expect the crew to breathe. They probably used most of them for passing coal when refueling, too.

Can you imagine looking at that thing and wanting a sistership, though?

Link to post

Share on other sites

Uffa, as Semi posted, is the likely designer of the OP boat. His lifeboat designs and inventiveness seem to suggest that. The "doctor" who built that boat may have modified some other hull in the build, striken by Uffa Fever, like a Flying Dutchman. I'm not a rudder design specialist even at a Holiday Inn, so that doesn't tell me who used that shape first or if it is generic to the age of that design.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The rig may be controlled from the cockpit, but how does the crew get to the forward cleat?

which forward cleat?

When moving foraward to do anything with ropes the boat is in calm waters, no problems. SJB was saying "working the foredeck" which somehow implies working during sailing, you know, all these strange strings and ropes and lines or whatever they are.

But again, even in an harbour it is not really necessary to move to the foredeck. No "foredeck working" is nnecessary.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In my long experience I have never been on a boat that did not require going forward underway at some point.

How do you handle the anchor if nothing else? What if some rigging breaks or fouls?

No matter what rationalizations are given or no matter what (admittedly superior) craftsmanship is involved, that is a really dumb deck design,

Well, as I have only sailed rather traditional boats, in my far too long experience, also I have had to enter the foredeck now and then. In contrast to conventional boats this boat has about nothing in front of the foremast.

Anchor is easy - you handle it from the cockpit, when everything has settled it can be fastened in the bow if so wanted. I did so myself for some years when the kids were small, easy way to do it, full control all the time.

You know, it all depends on the conditions in which the owner intend to use the boat.

Boils down to how one regards new ideas - I like new concepts, they tend to bring things forward. This one: beautiful and interesting. Practical? No idea - haven't sailed it.

It may be an artefact of translation but I particularly like, in their description of reasons you might call upon their expertise in insurance and repair work, the phrase "... and damage from less successful moorings…"

As to that boat, gosh . . . I wonder which tack it's faster on. I reckon it wouldn't take me long to capsize it with the ama to windward.